Thursday, October 1, 2009



amnesty is coming read stats (usa will be lost)

Date: 2009-10-01, 2:13PM PDT








COST TO INCARCERATE SINCE 2001 $1,460,981,036



ANCHOR BABIES SINCE 2002 2,105,945



Welfare and food stamp benefits soar $3 million higher than September payout. New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November 2007 – up $3 million dollars from September, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. Twenty five percent of the all welfare and food stamps benefits is going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegals collected over $20 million in welfare assistance for November 2007 and over $16 million in monthly food stamp allocations for a projected annual cost of $444 million. “This new information shows an alarming increase in the devastating impact Illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said Antonovich. “With $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $444 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education.”


Unfettered Immigration =POVERTY FOR AMERICANS
By Robert Rector | May 16, 2006
This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service. An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46] The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] Granting Amnesty is Likely to Further Increase Illegal Immigration The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The primary purpose of the act was to decrease the number of illegal immigrants by limiting their inflow and by legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already here.[63] In fact, the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased five fold from around 140,000 per year in the 1980s to 700,000 per year today. Illegal entries increased dramatically shortly after IRCA went into effect. It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country. After all, if the nation granted amnesty once why wouldn’t it do so again? The Hagel/Martinez legislation would repeat IRCA on a much larger scale. This time, nine to ten million illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty. As with IRCA, the bill promises to reduce future illegal entry but contains little policy that would actually accomplish this. The granting of amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants is likely to serve as a magnet pulling even greater numbers of aliens into the country in the future. If enacted, the legislation would spur further increases in the future flow of low-skill migrants. This in turn would increase poverty in America, enlarge the welfare state, and increase social and political tensions. Is your elected special interests pimp getting rich off elected office? CALIFORNIA’S SURE ARE!


Since the 1986 “amnesty” give away, there have been yearly 1.5 million illegals walk over our borders waving their Mexican flags, and slipping right into our jobs, welfare lines and hospital emergency rooms to give birth.
Meanwhile every year there are 1.5 million Americans that fall into poverty.
Daily there are 12 Americans murdered by illegals. In California alone there have been 2,000 Americans murdered by illegals that fled back to Mexico.
Foreclosure is the highest in states with the heaviest Mexican occupation. The highest foreclosure rate in this country is in La Raza Harry Reid’s Nevada where 25% of the population are ILLEGALS.
In Mexican occupied Los Angeles, 47% of those employed are illegals. L.A. county pays out $50 MILLION PER MONTH in welfare to illegals.
And yet hispandering Barack Obama and his banksters’ LA RAZA DEMS are at this very moment working for bit by bit amnesty.
In fact hispandering OBAMA just took 400 border patrol guards off the border with NarcoMex. Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer have all vowed quick amnesty, NO WALL, no e-verify, and NO ID for illegals to vote dem!
Who pays?

US Census Bureau report: 40 million living in poverty
By Kate Randall
30 September 2009
The overall poverty rate in the US rose to 13.2 percent in 2008, as workers across all sectors of the economy became jobless and increasing numbers of families were forced into destitution, according to a new government report. Real median household income also declined by 3.6 percent.
The report released Tuesday, part of the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, is the most recent to measure the recession’s impact on working class families and the poor. Based on the changes between 2007 and 2008, the first full year of the recession, its findings do not reflect increases in poverty and joblessness this year as the consequences of the crisis have become even more acute.
The official poverty rate of 13.2 percent in 2008 was up from 12.5 percent in 2007. This figure translates into 39.8 million people in poverty across America. The official poverty level is set at $22,000 annually for a family of four with two children or $12,000 for an individual, an absurdly low threshold. This means that far more people than indicated by the survey do not have adequate resources to pay for food, shelter, medical care and other basic necessities.
The poverty rate rose across virtually all demographic groups. Poverty among Hispanics climbed from 21.5 percent in 2007 to 23.2 percent in 2008. Non-Hispanic whites saw poverty rise from 8.2 percent in 2007 to 8.6 percent in 2008, while poverty among Asians was up from 10.2 percent in 2007 to 11.8 percent in 2008. African-Americans were the only group where poverty remained statistically unchanged at a staggering 24.7 percent, or about one in four people.
The Census Bureau reported a rise in poverty in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Two of the four most populous states—California and Florida—saw poverty rates rise by 1 percent, to just over 13 percent in each state.
Connecticut saw the largest increase in poverty, rising to 9.3 percent, with an additional 1.4 percent of the state’s population living in poverty. Connecticut’s proximity to Wall Street, the center of the financial collapse, contributed to the state’s poverty as spending cuts by bankers and other financial employees in the New York City suburbs were reflected in declines in income for the lowest paid workers.
William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, commented in an interview, “People don’t go from being a CEO or a hedge fund manager into poverty, but there is a trickle-down effect when these groups of people start to cut back on their spending. In many places, the first people to go when things get tight are the lowest-earning workers.”
Michigan, which has been devastated by the collapse of the auto industry, is the only state that has seen poverty increase for two years in a row, with the rate now standing at 13 percent. The industrial states of Pennsylvania and Indiana also saw significant increases in poverty, along with Oregon and Hawaii.
The South remained the most impoverished, at 14.3 percent, up slightly from 14.2 percent in 2007. Mississippi, with 21.2 percent in poverty, saw the highest rate of any state, while poverty in Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas hovered around 17 percent.
The Midwest poverty rate rose to 12.4 percent from 11.1 percent the previous year. The West saw the largest increase in poverty, up by 1.5 percent, rising from 12 percent in 2007 to 13.5 percent. The Northeast, which saw an increase in poverty in 2007, saw the rate remain statistically unchanged, at 11.6 percent in 2008.
The rate of poverty among America’s children is alarming, with 19 percent—14.1 million children—affected in 2008, up a full percentage point from a year earlier. This rate increased in 26 states and in Washington, DC. Children in families headed by a single female suffered the highest rates of poverty: 43.5 percent of those under 18 years of age live in poverty, while 53.3 percent of children under 6 years are poor.
Increasing numbers of families, both the jobless and workers facing shrinking hours and paychecks, are turning to food pantries and the Food Stamp program. Food Stamp use in 2008 jumped 13 percent to nearly 9.8 million US households, led by Louisiana, Maine and Kentucky. Two cities—Pharr, Texas, and the former General Motors production center, Flint, Michigan—each had more than a third of their residents on food stamps. Families with two or more workers accounted for 28.4 percent of food stamp recipients in 2008, up 1.5 percent from 2007.
Following three years of annual income increases, real median income declined in the US by 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, falling from $52,163 to $50,303. The Midwest and South saw the biggest declines in median income, 4 percent and 4.9 percent respectively.
The gap between the richest and poorest Americans is also widening as the economic crisis ravages household budgets. An Associated Press analysis of the Census Bureau statistics shows that the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, those making $138,000 or more a year, earned 11.4 times the $12,000 made by individuals living below the poverty line in 2008. In 2007, the richest 10 percent made 11.2 times more.
The jump in poverty and income inequality comes as the job market continues to shrink, even as government and economic analysts speak of a turnaround. According to US Labor Department figures from July, job seekers now outnumber openings six to one, with only 2.4 million full-time, permanent jobs open while 14.5 million people are officially unemployed and looking for work.
Many companies remain cautious about hiring new workers in the uncertain economic environment. Having trimmed back workers’ hours and laid off temporary workers, even if businesses do expand in the future they are likely to increase output by increasing the workload on existing employees.
Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told the New York Times, “They have tons of room to increase work without hiring a single person. For people who are out of work, we do not see signs of light at the end of the tunnel.”
From December 2007 through July 2009, job openings have declined in every area of the country: 45 percent in the West and South, 36 percent in the Midwest, and 23 percent in the Northeast. According to the Times, since the end of 2008 virtually every sector of the economy has been hit by the collapse in job openings, which have shrunk 47 percent in manufacturing, 37 percent in construction, 22 percent in retail, and 21 percent in education and health services.
While it is estimated that the government could spend in excess of $23 trillion to bail out the banks, and hundreds of billions to pursue its military conquests in Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing of any substance is being done to help the millions of Americans being plunged into joblessness and poverty.
The National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, estimates that 400,000 Americans nationwide could exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of September and 1.4 million long-term unemployed could stop receiving checks by the end of the year.
In some states, such as California, where the unemployment rate hit 12.2 percent in July—the highest level since 1940—workers laid off early in the recession have received three extensions on the regular 26 weeks of benefits, bringing them to a maximum of 79 weeks of payments.
The US House recently passed a $1.4 billion bill to provide another 13 weeks of jobless benefits in high unemployment states like California. The legislation still faces a vote in the Senate. The extension in benefits, however, would not cover many of the newly unemployed, or those yet to lose their jobs.
In California, for instance, hundreds of thousands who filed claims after June 14 of this year would be eligible for no more than 39 weeks of benefits. A House bill that would have provided longer extensions through 2010 was scrapped because it would have cost $70 billion, a price tag the lawmakers were unwilling to authorize.
About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
One in nine Americans uses food stamps
By Tom Eley
20 August 2009
One in nine Americans relied on food stamps in May, the highest proportion ever, according to recently released data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). In all, 34.4 million people used the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a federal program that provides assistance to low-income people, an increase of more than 2 percent from the previous month, and a staggering increase of 6 million over the past year.
May’s increase was the sixth consecutive month that set a new record in food stamp use. Government food assistance increased in every state, with Florida registering the sharpest gain at 4.2 percent.
The year-over-year percentage increase in food stamp use is more striking, with 13 states, representing every region of the country, registering a spike of more than 25 percent. These were Utah (45.5 percent), Nevada (39 percent), Idaho (36.3 percent), Washington (34.5 percent), Florida (34.2 percent), Vermont (33.6 percent), Wisconsin (31.3 percent), Arizona (29.7 percent), Colorado (28.9 percent), Georgia (28.3 percent), Maryland (27.2 percent), Massachusetts (25.3 percent), and Oregon (25 percent).
“Food stamp enrollment is rising because the economy is having a devastating impact on low-income families and they need this program to eat,” said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. “Every single state has been affected.”
The food stamp program is largely funded by the federal government and administered by the states. Historically, recipients could redeem stamps or coupons for food assistance at grocery stores, but in recent years paper stamps have been phased out in favor of a debit card system called Electronic Benefit Transfer.
The program aims to assist the desperately poor. According to the USDA, the average gross monthly income of food stamp-receiving households was $640, with nearly 80 percent of all benefits going to households with children.
The program provides an average of $133 monthly per person requesting food assistance. By way of comparison, according to the USDA’s own estimates, a “low-cost” monthly nutritional scheme for a single teenage boy requires a minimum of $220 spending on food per month.
Federal food assistance for the poor was a Great Society measure created during the the Lyndon Johnson administration (1963-1969). Since the late 1970s, it has weathered round after round of cuts at the hands of both Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses, who claimed to be creating a “culture of responsibility” among the poor.
The most savage of these cuts came in 1996, through Bill Clinton’s “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act,” which eliminated eligibility for legal immigrants (these restrictions have since been only slightly relaxed), limited stamp use for “able bodied” adults without dependents to three months during a 36-month period, and substantially reduced maximum food benefits.
The result is a food stamp program that, even in more favorable economic conditions, fails to meet basic nutritional needs and shuts out the vast majority of the working class from any assistance whatsoever. The economic crisis has laid bare the woefully inadequate character of the program and the “social safety net” as a whole.
In Texas, demand is such that in July the state was delinquent in processing nearly 40 percent of new requests. Rachel Cavazos, who has four children, is jobless, and is in the midst of a divorce, applied for food stamps in April and has not yet heard back on her request. “It’s very hurtful, especially when somebody doesn’t give you the benefit of the doubt,” the 32-year-old Houston native recently told the Houston and Texas News. “The help is not for me. It’s for my babies. I don’t want my children to suffer.”
Recently at a Dallas, Texas, food stamp office, a line of the desperate and hungry formed before 5 a.m. “I got a four, a five and a 15-year-old. And right now I got $2.27. So we’re going to have some Ramen noodles tonight,” Kenyadda Momanyi told a local news station. A class action lawsuit has been filed against the state of Texas to force it to process applications more swiftly.
Mickey Warren, food directer of Christian Life Food Pantry in Knox County, Kentucky, recently went before the local Chamber of Commerce in a desperate bid for charitable contributions. “It’s toward the end of the month and people are starting to look for more and more food, because by now the ones that draw food stamps, they’re gone, the kids are hungry,” he said.
“Warren recalled [recently watching] a small girl rip open a whole pound cake package in the pantry parking lot, grasping it with both hands and eating it like a candy bar, because she had been hungry,” the local reported.
In Wichita, Kansas, a grandmother summed up her plight in a word. “The most simple word would be we’re hungry,” Kathi Boggs told a local news station, as she sat with her 6-year-old grandson, Alex, at a soup kitchen. “At the end of the day there’s not enough for food.”
“People are desperate,” said Gary Madden, a charity worker who assists people in gaining access to food stamps in San Bernardino County, California. “People calling now are saying things like ‘I’ve never asked for help in my life. I don’t know what I’m going to do. I’ve lost my job and I’m about to lose my home.’ More men are calling. Families are doubling up in homes.”
“Callers are saying, ‘bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, where’s my bailout?’,” Madden told

How Many Ilegals Are There? 12 MILLION or really 38 MILLION???

Have you noticed that all the LA RAZA DEMS use the same number of illegals as 12 million? 12 million that stole our jobs, are on welfare, and waving Mexican flags. Guess they the La Raza dems think we can swallow that easy enough as they perpetrate their endless BIT BY BIT AMNESTY.... But what if there are actually 38 million and breeding like bunnies? THEN WHAT IS THE COST?


Study: Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million A new report finds the Homeland Security Department "grossly underestimates" the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Studies released a report August 31 that estimates the number of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is between 8 and 12 million. But the group Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAPS, has unveiled a report estimating the illegal population is actually between 20 and 38 million. Four experts, all of whom contributed to the study prepared by CAPS, discussed their findings at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday. James Walsh, a former associate general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he is "appalled" that the Bush administration, lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, have no problem with sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. "Ladies and gentlemen, the sanctuary cities and the people that support them are violating the laws of the United States of America. They're violating 8 USC section 1324 and 1325, which is a felony -- [it's] a felony to aid, support, transport, shield, harbor illegal aliens," Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended. According to Walsh, "In the United States, immigration is in a state of anarchy -- not chaos, but anarchy." IT’S ALSO THE NEXT GENERATION AFTER GENERATION OF “CHEAP” (FOR EMPLOYERS) MEXICAN LABOR......! ...



We are a nation “buried” in Mexican trash.....SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, PRISONS, IN MELTDOWN.... 2000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY MEXICANS...... They export their illiterate poor, which is about 90% of the country, along with their criminal classes and also PREGNANT WOMEN for AMERICAN TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT THEIR “ANCHOR BABIES”..... 1 in 10 births in this country is by an illegal!

Sept. 24, 2006, 'Border baby' boom strains S. Texas More illegal immigrants are pouring into the state to give birth By JAMES PINKERTON Houston Chronicle RIO GRANDE CITY — First it was a trickle, now it's a flood. Rising numbers of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America are streaming into Texas to give birth, straining hospitals and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, health officials say. Doctors and health officials say they are overwhelmed by both the new arrivals and those immigrant mothers who already are in the state. Even Houston's feeling the pinch. An estimated 70 percent to 80 percent of the 10,587 births at Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital last year were to undocumented immigrants, administrators say. Also feeling the strain is Starr County, an already poor South Texas county that has the region's only taxpayer-supported hospital district. Immigrants "want a U.S.-born baby" and know that emergency room staffers don't collect any money up front, said Dr. Mario Rodriguez, an obstetrician in Starr County. "The word is out: Come to Starr County and get delivered for free. Why pay $1,000 in Mexico when you can get it for free?" Rodriguez said. 'Unfortunately, doctors say, Starr County isn't alone. “OUR LITTLE SNAPSHOT IS DUPLICATED IN ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES BETWEEN HERE AND CALIFORNIA.....” how about every muni in all 50 states? Know of a state not overrun by illegals? ''Our little snapshot is duplicated in all the municipalities between here and California," said Tony Falcon, a Rio Grande City physician who was appointed to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission in April. ''What you see here is what is happening in Brownsville, McAllen, El Paso and San Diego." 'Anchor babies' ....easy American citizenship! Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, an open borders advocate, also wants CHAIN IMMIGRATION. For every illegal here, they’re able to bring the rest of the extended family with them. CNN reports that may be as many as 272 more illegals for EVERY ONE HERE ALREADY! Immigration-control advocates regard the U.S.-born infants as "anchor babies" because they give their undocumented parents and relatives a way to petition for citizenship. They estimate that 360,000 of these babies are born in the U.S. every year and warn that the numbers are rising. Once parents have an "anchor baby," they become more difficult to deport, said Jack Martin, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a lobby organization in Washington, D.C. ''It's a fairly big factor in complicating the removal of illegal aliens," Martin said. "Illegal aliens know that and, to some extent, we think they're being influenced into having children as soon as they get into the U.S. to complicate their removal." Some lawmakers want to begin denying citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants. Birthright citizenship, as it is known, has been in force since the approval of the Constitution's 14th Amendment in 1868. But several bills under consideration in Congress would abolish the longstanding federal policy. Sponsors include U.S. Reps. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, and Nathan Deal, R-Ga. In a largely symbolic move, the Michigan House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Sept. 8 to end birthright citizenship. Uncollected medical bills Starr County Memorial Hospital had $3.6 million in uncollected medical bills in 2005, up from $1.5 million in 2002. The total when fiscal 2006 ends on Sept. 30 is expected to hit $3.9 million, chief financial officer Rafael Olivarez said. Unpaid bills for the past five years will reach nearly $13 million, he said. To make up for the shortfall, Starr County's hospital district is proposing a 25 percent tax hike. Already, the U.S. government is pitching in, setting aside $1 billion in Medicaid funds to pay for emergency care received by undocumented migrants over the next four years. But Olivarez said getting the reimbursements isn't easy. Federal officials ''told us at a meeting they would pay us about 20 cents on the dollar," he said. "But it's better than nothing." No one knows for sure how many undocumented immigrants there are or what they cost the health care system. Most hospitals don't ask whether patients have papers. Total cost unknown ''It puts them in the position of being border police," said Amanda Engler, a spokeswoman for the Texas Hospital Association in Austin. Harris County Hospital District officials say their policy is not to question patients directly about their citizenship. ''We do not explicitly ask if our patients are illegal, but we do ask them for proof of Harris County residency," district spokeswoman Shannon Rasp said. "Often citizenship status becomes clearer when billing issues come up." Eighty-three percent of the undocumented immigrants receiving in-patient care at the district's hospitals and clinics last year were from Mexico, officials said. Six percent were from El Salvador or Guatemala. And the remaining 11 percent were from such countries as Britain, Canada, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria and Vietnam. ''Using anecdotal information provided us by our staff, statistics from other public hospital systems and our patient demographics, we believe that approximately 70 to 80 percent of our obstetrics patients are undocumented," Rasp said. In all, 57,072 patients visited the district's hospitals, clinics and health centers last year, and nearly a fifth were undocumented, Rasp said. The cost of their treatment was $97.3 million, up from $55 million in 2002. ......................................................................................